Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / Modern Hebrew / Approximation derived from a scalar exclusive particle associating with covert focus: The case of Hebrew be-sax ha-kol

Approximation derived from a scalar exclusive particle associating with covert focus: The case of Hebrew be-sax ha-kol

What it is about

The Hebrew particle be-sax ha-kol ("in sum the all") has two readings: an exclusive one ("only, just", as with rak) and an approximative one ("more or less") when it attaches to a gradable predicate such as "clean". The authors argue that both readings come from one scalar exclusive. The difference is in the focus associate: the exclusive reading associates with overt, prosodically marked material, while the approximative reading associates with a covert pos degree modifier, giving "x is pos A, but not maximally A". The approximative reading is shown to need an upper-bound scale with a non-maximal standard, and the at-issue status of its two components is reversed compared with only. Diagnostics (a "That's false" test) show that the particle patterns with around and more or less and not with almost. The paper is theoretical and built on introspective and attested examples; it gives no counts.

Ideas

For Mova

I1 goes into Prepositions, prefixes, conjunctions and particles (the particle entry) and needs the gradable-predicate test in prag. I2 is a test set for 9. Pragmatics and politeness and the approximator class in prag. I3 is a field of the particle's entry in the same chapter.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/gjgl.1036

@article{orenstein2021approximation,
  title = {{Approximation derived from a scalar exclusive particle associating with covert focus: The case of Hebrew be-sax ha-kol}},
  author = {Orenstein, Dina and Greenberg, Yael},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.1036},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1036}
}

References

57 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abusch, Dorit. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27. 37–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp009 ↗
  2. Abrusán, Márta. 2011. Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics & Philosophy 34(6). 491–535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9108-y ↗
  3. Amaral, Patrícia, Chris Cummins & Napoleon Katsos. 2011. Experimental evidence on the distinction between foregrounded and backgrounded meaning. In Gregory Kierstead (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI: Workshop on projective content, 1–7. Columbus: The Ohio State University. find
  4. Alxatib, Sam. 2013. ‘Only’ and association with negative antonyms. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. find
  5. Amaral, Patricial & Fabio Del Prete. 2010. Approximating the limit: The interaction between quasi ‘almost’ and some temporal connectives in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 33. 51–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-011-9088-3 Bassi, Itai, Guillermo Del Pinal, & Uli Sauerland. 2019. Presuppositional exhaustification. Ms. https://ling. auf.net/lingbuzz/004821. ↗
  6. Beaver, David & Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning (Explorations in Semantics). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176 ↗
  7. Beaver, David, Brady Clark, Edward Flemming, T. Florian Jäger & Maria Wolters. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second occurrence focus. Language 83(2). 245–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0053 ↗
  8. Beltrama, Andera & M. Ryan Bochnak. 2015. Intensification without degrees crosslinguistically. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(3). 843–879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9294-8 ↗
  9. Breheny, Richard, Nathan Klinedinst, Jacopo Romoli & Yasutada Sudo. 2018. The symmetry problem: Current theories and prospects. Natural Language Semantics 26. 86–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9141-z Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001 ↗
  10. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2011. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Paul Portner, Claudia Maienborn & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 2297– 2331. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  11. Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2014. Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 31. 371–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007 ↗
  12. Crnič, Luka. 2011. Getting even. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. find
  13. Cummins, Chris, Patricia Amaral, & Napoleon Katsos. 2012. Experimental investigations of the typology of presupposition triggers. Humana Mante Journal of Philosophical Studies 23, 1–15. find
  14. Egg, Markus & Malte Zimmermann. 2011. Stressed out! Accented discourse particles – the case of ‘doch’. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of SuB 16 MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 225–238. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. To appear. Mandarin exhaustive focus shì and the syntax of discourse congruence. In Remus Gergel, Augustin Speyer & Ingo Reich (eds.), Particles in German, English, and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  15. Féry, Caroline & Shinichiro Ishihara. 2009. The Phonology of second occurrence focus. Journal of Linguistics 459(2). 285–313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709005702 ↗
  16. Greenberg, Yael. 2019. Even and only: Arguing for parallels in scalarity and in constructing alternatives. In Maggie Baird & Jonathan Pesetsky (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 49, 61–70. Ithaca: Cornell University. find
  17. Greenberg, Yael. 2020. An overt even operator over covert-based focus alternatives: The case of Hebrew BIXLAL. Journal of Semantics 37(1). 1–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffz010 ↗
  18. Greenberg, Yael & Dina Orenstein. 2016. Typologies for even-like and only-like particles: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. A paper presented at ESSLLI 28, Bolzano, 2016. Orenstein and Greenberg Glossa: a journal of general linguistics DOI: 10.5334/g jgl.1036 find
  19. Guerzoni, Elena. 2003. Why even ask? on the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. find
  20. Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3). 183–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183 ↗
  21. Horn, Laurence. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from the fifth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society [= CLS]5, 97–108. Chicago: University of Chicago. find
  22. Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition and focus. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. find
  23. Kadmon, Nirit & Aldo Sevi. 2011. Without ‘Focus’. In Barbara Partee, Michael Glanzberg & Jurgis Skilters (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics. Discourse, context and models. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Vol. 6. Manhattan, KS: New Prairie Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1585 ↗
  24. Karttunen, Lauri, Stanley Peters, Annie Zaenen & Cleo Condoravdi. 2014. The chameleon-like nature of evaluative adjectives. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10. 233–250. find
  25. Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005a. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81. 345–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071 ↗
  26. Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005b. The syntax and semantics of multiple degree modification in English. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 178–191. Lisbon: University of Lisbon. find
  27. Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 1–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351812 ↗
  28. Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic Halos. Language 75. 522–551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/417059 ↗
  29. Liu, Mingming. 2017. Varieties of alternatives: Mandarin focus particles. Linguistics and Philosophy 40. 61–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9199-y ↗
  30. McNabb, Yaron. 2012. Hebrew mamaš ‘really’ vs. real cases of degree modification. A paper presented at LSA Annual Meeting. Portland, OR. find
  31. McNally, Louise. 2011. The relative role of property type and scale structure in explaining the behavior of gradable adjectives. In Rick Nouwen, Robert van Rooij, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Christian Schmitz (eds.), Vagueness in communication, 151–168. Berlin: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18446-8_9 ↗
  32. Miashkur, Lena. 2017. A parametric comparison of Russian scalar particles daže and voobšce. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University thesis. find
  33. Miashkur, Lena. 2018. A parametric comparison of two scalar particles in Russian. In Noa Brandel (ed.), Proceedings of IATL33 MIT working papers in Linguistics 89. 121–148. find
  34. Morzycki, Marcin. 2011. Metalinguistic comparison in an alternative semantics for imprecision. Natural Language Semantics 19(1). 39–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9063-5 ↗
  35. Orenstein, Dina. 2015. A family of exclusives in Hebrew. In Miriam Kaeshammer & Philip Schulz (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information Student Session, 96–106. find
  36. Orenstein, Dina. 2016. The semantics, pragmatics and focus sensitivity of exclusive particles in Modern Hebrew. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University dissertation. find
  37. Orenstein, Dina & Yael Greenberg. 2010. The Semantics and Focus Sensitivity of the Hebrew (unstressed) Stam. In Yehuda Falk (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 26. Bar Ilan University. find
  38. Orenstein, Dina & Yael Greenberg. 2013. A flexible exclusive particle: The case of the Hebrew be-sax ha-kol (‘all in all’). In Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer & Grégoire Winterstein (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, 381–397. Paris: ENS Partee, Barbara. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 213–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  39. Roberts, Craige. 2011. only: A case study in projective meaning. In Barbara Partee, Michael Glanzberg & Jurgis Skilters (Eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics. Discourse, context and models. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Vol. 6. Manhattan, KS: New Prairie Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1581 ↗
  40. Romoli, Jacopo. 2015. The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 32. 173–291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft017 ↗
  41. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Massachusetts, Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation. find
  42. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 ↗
  43. Rotstein, Carmen & Yoad Winter. 2004. Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12. 259–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:NALS.0000034517.56898.9a Orenstein and Greenberg Glossa: a journal of general linguistics DOI: 10.5334/g jgl.1036 ↗
  44. Sassoon, Galit. 2013. A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics 30. 335–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs012 ↗
  45. Sassoon, Galit. 2018. A degree-approach account of multidimensional gradability. Ms. Bar Ilan University. find
  46. Sauerland, Uli & Penka Stateva. 2007. Scalar vs. epistemic vagueness: Evidence from approximators. In Tova Friedman & Masayuki Gibson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 17, 228–245. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v17i0.3091 ↗
  47. Simons, Mandy, David Beaver, Craige Roberts & Judith Tonhauser. 2017. The best question: Explaining the projection behavior of factive verbs. Discourse Processes 54(3). 187–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/0163853X.2016.1150660 Schlenker, Philippe. 2007. Transparency: An incremental theory of presupposition projection. In Uli Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, 214–242. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_8 ↗
  48. Smith, E. Allyn & Kathleen Currie Hall. 2011. Projection diversity: Experimental evidence. In Gregory Kierstead (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI Workshop on Projective Content, 156–170. The Ohio State University. find
  49. Toledo, Assaf & Galit Sassoon. 2011. Absolute vs. relative adjectives – variance within vs. between individuals. In Neil Ashton, Anca Chereches & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 21. 135–154. Linguistic Society of America. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2587 ↗
  50. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts & Mandy Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89. 66–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001 ↗
  51. Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver & Judith Degen. 2018. How projective is projective content? gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics 35. 495–542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ jos/ffy007 Umbach, Carla. 2009. Another additive particle under stress: German additive noch. In Proceedings of LOLA 10, 149–156. van der Sandt, Rob. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9. 333–377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333 von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3. 1–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/3.1-2.1 ↗
  52. Wagner, Michael. 2012. Focus and givenness: a unified approach. In Ivona Kučerová & Ad Neeleman (eds.), Contrasts and positions in information structure, 102–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511740084.007 ↗
  53. Wiegand, Mia. 2017. Exclusive morphosemantics: Just and covert quantification. A paper presented at 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Calgary. find
  54. Xue, Jingyang & Edgar Onea. 2011. Correlation between projective meaning and at-issueness: An empirical study. In Gregory Kierstead (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI: Workshop on projective content, 171–184. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Orenstein and Greenberg Glossa: a journal of general linguistics DOI: 10.5334/g jgl.1036 find
  55. TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Orenstein, Dina and Yael Greenberg. 2021. Approximation derived from a scalar exclusive particle associating with covert focus: The case of Hebrew be-sax ha-kol. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1): 5. 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ gjgl.1036 ↗
  56. Submitted: 14 July 2019 Accepted: 06 August 2020 Published: 19 January 2021 find
  57. COPYRIGHT: © 2021 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2021-orenstein-approximation-derived-scalar-exclusive-particle/